Humankind is often criticised for wiping out other species / cutting all the rainforests down / using Nuclear Weapons / causing global warming / genetically engineering things, as you all well know. A common complaint, (especially in genetic engineering re: ‘frankenfoods’), is that it’s in some way unnatural. Well I disagree. It’s all perfectly natural. We’re part of nature and anything we do is natural. if we were studying termites that mined ores and then split atoms and used the process to win wars while contaminating the next termite mound with radioactivity we’d be marvelling at the little blighters. We’d think them a bit thick if they wiped themselves out in the process of course but that’s their business. I happen to think we’ll solve all the technological problems with technology but if not, no worries, it’s some other species’ turn - as they say, the final battle will be between cockroaches and gonorrhea… Anyway, once we work out how to get out into the Galaxy a bit easier then we’ll cause some bother - we just need to engineer immortality and upgrade to Humankind version 1.1 - Undestructable Biotech Psychobots then we can concentrate properly and get stuck into them…
Weep, galaxy, weep, for humankind is coming… Krikkit! krikkit!
Nice post martin.
But I’m thinking it would read better if you had yourself an avatar. Ever consider getting one?
Certainly not. You know they cause predjudice - I’m saving you from yourself.
Thanks!
It strike me that this argument relies on an ambiguity in the word ‘nature’. Yes, human beings are part of nature as are gazelles. But when we create artificial chemicals, those are not, by virture of having been created by processes we invented, natural chemicals - quite the opposite, they are artificial.
A better argument against people who say ‘it’s unnatural!’ is to point out that just because something is natural, it is not also ‘good’. The bubonic plague was natural as is poison ivy.
.
But the point is that WE are natural so any chemicals that come about as a result of processes we ‘invent’ are also ‘natural’. We are made of chemicals, those chemicals combine through highly complicated processes, including human social relationships, and as a result a new chemical is produced - this must be natural because it is the result of a natural process - us
Wow. I just argued this over on the vegetarian thread. Just now. Yes, ends sourced in natural means are natural by extension.
Hello F(r)iends,
Obw
Is poison ivy ‘bad’?
Is the bubonic plague (the virus) itself ‘bad’?
Jerry, does your assertion suggest that there is nothing unnatural?
Martin, same question.
-Thirst
Yes, Thirst. Everything is a part of nature in my book, thus natural by definition.
I don’t think I need to clarify what I wrote - what do YOU think of the argument - can you argue against it?
No it’s not natural, because by destroying the rainforests, causing global warming, etc we are slowly destroying nature. while the termites just do their job in their ecosystem and they do not destroy nature( yes, they do destroy nature, but their destruction is needed for the balance of nature in itself).
their destruction isn’t ‘needed’ at all. All that happens is a different species adapts to the new conditions that the termites have caused. All that happens with global warming is that humans will adapt to the new atmosphere, plants will no doubt thrive in the increased co2 and warmth and other organisms will spread into new territory. It’s been happening for millions of years. The last ice age ended 10-15,000 years ago - present day temperatures were reached approx 6,000 years ago. Human civilisation flourished because of these environmental changes. Other species’ will flourish becuase of the current changes. It’s all natural, you can’t seperate humans from nature, despite what religion has conditioned most people to think…
meteors falling fromt he sky or vesuvius or krakatau erupting are perfectly natural as well
does that mean they’re beneficial? i wouldn’t think so
the present day global change are much too fast for many ecosystems to adapt, so perhaps we should consider handling our climatological prowess a bit more careful…
The asteroid that probably wiped out the dinosaurs was too catastrophic for many species to adapt to, but as a result of it our mammalian ancestors thrived and expanded into the new environment. All the life on earth today is here as a result of these catastrophies. Unless ALL life is eradicated, which is near enough impossible, then life will evolve, adapt and flourish. There is no ‘higher purpose’ behind life, it’s a biological process that continues in even the most extreme environments…
hi martin,
I’m a little cautious by what you mean by “natural”. Do you mean “physical”? If so, the thinking by which we create pesticides is in a way metaphysical.
If by “natural” you wish to oppose (as in your topic title) “un-natural”, do mean non-living or something else?
If the world of undomesticated animals and plants and their environments has value to us – perhaps as subject for spiritual contemplation – then we clearly should not destroy that world while we ourselves live. :D/
My point is that the word ‘unnatural’ is meaningless. Humans and their evolved and advanced death avoidance system (instincts + consciousness) are natural and anything that results from them is also natural.
You’re looking at the world through human coloured spectacles. there are hundreds of living organisms that produce pesticides / chemical weapons by mixing chemicals together. We do the same. We’re an organism that uses chemicals to stop other organisms from destroying our food sources. We do it in a slightly different way, in a slightly more complicated way but it’s just the same. There’s no metaphysical explanation needed. The feeling of happiness that comes as a result of your spiritual contemplation is just an evolutionary urge that takes pleasure in ‘beauty’. beauty is simply the feeling that perfection is near or imminent and that, therefore, decay is absent and the possibility of death is reduced. truth is beauty because truth / facts aid in decision making by facilitating correct decision making and therefore, providing better chances of survival. You find the ‘undomesticated’ world pleasing because you assosciate it with health and happiness and domestication with ‘unnaturalness’ and danger.
You’re supposing that humans will adapt, what if we won’t? Human race can cease to exist just because some people tought that we would adapt. And think it is proved that nothing will flourish because of the current climate changes, we may even end up to destroy earth’s ecosystem. You’re suppossing too much.
From the moment humans became intelligent and started to think, we broke one of our many ties we had with nature. And by learning how too create, modify, destroy, consciously, in great proportions we are separating ourselves from nature.
Yes, we do the same in a diffrent way, no problem in that. But humans do it in a unbalanced way, in a way that strongly harms the ecosystems, while that living organins do not harm the ecosystems, they do it in a balanced way.
There is creation in destruction and destruction in creation.
The asteroid wiped out dinosaurs and ecosystems, not in a conscious way, while we are destroying the ecosystems in a conscious way. We should not force it nature to evolv, we should let nature evolve alone.
We are not separate from nature. WE are nature. Nature evolves and we evolve and everything evolves. It’s a natural process. WE are part of it. Locusts don’t care for the consequences of what they do - they simply devour everything in their path. Should locusts be eradicated? Of course not. Other creatures have adapted to eat them and a whole new ecosystem evolves…
We can’t destroy the Earth’s ecosystem - there’s life in the deepest oceans, in highly acidic environments, in deep rock, in glaciers, everywhere. Life always finds a way and adapts - it’s evolution through natural selection. It’s survived catastrophy after catastrophy, global warming is not a catastrophy, it’s climate change. The climate has been changing continuosly for millions of years. Oxygen levels and temperature levels have fluctuated and life has adapted. Oxygen is a poison yet we’ve adapted to breath it into out lungs… We’re currently in an interglacial period which began 10-15,000 years ago and will last for another 10,000 years but then another ice age will come and lots of species will die out and lots will adapt and change… it’s a long term, global chemical reaction and WE can’t stop it, we can either adapt or die out
When we evolved to be able to anticipate the future we evolved into efficient survivors, we didn’t break any ties, we evolved and filled a niche. That’s not unnatural
Quibble warning:
A spider creates a ‘natural’ external device - its web - using secretions both internal in origin and unthinkingly produced within its body. And a genetically programmed instinctive program.
Same with the termite guys - they follow a rigid internal (genetic) program, unerred from down the ages ie: none-intelligent/creative, hence the mound-form is as much of a naturally evolved thing as the termite’s eye for example, supplemented with ingredients both internally-generated and externally sourced - to build their mound. A ‘natural’ building.
Humans however only manipulate ‘naturally’ occuring materials, wholly external to themselves in origin, into other external forms that would never occur except through intelligent design. ie: un-evolved naturally.
Termite-Tech and Human-Tech are not the same.
Tab4Quibbles.
Tab,
Just to be clear, are you saying that intelligent design is somehow unnatural?